IUNONARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2867.
Delbrueck follows Preller[154]in making the Iunonarium a part of the temple of Fortuna. It seems strange to have a statue of Trivia dedicated in a Iunonarium, but it is stranger that there are no inscriptions among those from Præneste which mention Juno, except that the name alone appears on a bronze mirror and two bronze dishes,[155]and as the provenience of bronze is never certain, such inscriptions mean nothing. It seems that the Iunonarium must have been somewhere in the west end of the temple precinct of Fortuna.
KASA CUI VOCABULUM EST FULGERITA, C.I.L., XIV, 2934.
This is an inscription which mentions a property inside the domain of Præneste in a region, which in 385 A.D., was called regio Campania,[156]but it can not be located.
LACUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2998; Not. d. Scavi, 1902, p. 12. LAVATIO, C.I.L., XIV, 2978, 2979, 3015.
These three inscriptions were found in places so far from one another that they may well refer to three lavationes.
LUDUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3014.
Seeamphitheatrum.
MACELLUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2937, 2946.
These inscriptions were found along the Via degli Arconi, and from the fact that in 243 A.D. (C.I.L. XIV, 2972) there was a region (regio) by that name, I should conclude that the lower part of the town below the wall was called regio macelli. In Cecconi's time the city was divided into four quarters,[157]which may well represent ancient tradition.
MACERIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3314, 3340.
Cecconi, Storia di Palestrina, p. 87.
MASSA PRÆ(NESTINA), C.I.L., XIV, 2934.
MURUS, C.I.L., XIV, 3002.
See above,pages 22ff.
PORTA TRIUMPHALIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2850.
See above,page 32.
PORTICUS, C.I.L., XIV, 2995.
See discussion of temple,page 42.
QUADRIGA, C.I.L., XIV, 2986.
SACRARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 2900.
SCHOLA FAUSTINIANA, C.I.L., XIV, 2901; C.I.G., 5998.
Fernique (Étude sur Préneste, p. 119) thinks this the building the ruins of which are of brick and called a temple, near the Ponte dell' Ospedalato, but this is impossible. The date of the brick work is all much later than the date assigned to it by him, and much later than the name itself implies.
SEMINARIA A PORTA TRIUMPHALE, C.I.L., XIV, 2850.
This building was just inside the gate which was in the center of the south wall of Præneste, directly below the ancient forum and basilica.
SOLARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3323.
SPOLIARIUM, C.I.L., XIV, 3014.
SeeAmphitheatrum.
TEMPLUM SARAPIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2901.
TEMPLUM HERCULIS, C.I.L., XIV, 2891, 2892; Not. d. Scavi, 11 (1882-1883), p. 48.
This temple was a mile or more distant from the city, in the territory now known as Bocce di Rodi, and was situated on the little road which made a short cut between the two great roads, the Prænestina and the Labicana.
SACRA VIA, Not. d. Scavi, Ser. 5, 4 (1896), p. 49.
In the discussions on the temple and the forum,pages 42and54, I think it is proved that the Sacra Via of Præneste was the ancient road which extended from the Porta Triumphalis up through the Forum, past the Basilica and round behind it, to the entrance into the precinct and temple of Fortuna Primigenia.
VIA, C.I.L., XIV, 3001, 3343. Viam sternenda(m).
In inscription No. 3343 we have supra viam parte dex(tra), and from the provenience of the stone we get a proof that the old road which led out through the Porta S. Francesco was so well known that it was called simply "via."
Præneste was already a rich and prosperous community, when Rome was still fighting for a precarious existence. The rapid development, however, of the Latin towns, and the necessity of mutual protection and advancement soon brought Rome and Præneste into a league with the other towns of Latium. Præneste because of her position and wealth was the haughtiest member of the newly made confederation, and with the more rapid growth of Rome became her most hated rival. Later, when Rome passed from a position of first among equals to that of mistress of her former allies, Præneste was her proudest and most turbulent subject.
From the earliest times, when the overland trade between Upper Etruria, Magna Græcia, and Lower Etruria came up the Liris valley, and touching Præneste and Tibur crossed the river Tiber miles above Rome, that energetic little settlement looked with longing on the city that commanded the splendid valley between the Sabine and Volscian mountains. Rome turned her conquests in the direction of her longings, but could get no further than Gabii. Præneste and Tibur were too strongly situated, and too closely connected with the fierce mountaineers of the interior,[158]and Rome was glad to make treaties with them on equal terms.
Rome, however, made the most of her opportunities. Her trade up and down the river increased, and at the same time brought her in touch with other nations more and more. Her political importance grew rapidly, and it was not long before she began to assume the primacy among the towns of the Latin league. This assumption of a leadership practically hers already was disputed by only one city. This was Præneste, and there can be no doubt but that if Præneste had possessed anything approaching the same commercial facilities in way of communication by water she would have been Rome's greatest rival. As late as 374 B.C. Præneste was alone an opponent worthy of Rome.[159]
As head of a league of nine cities,[160]and allied with Tibur, which also headed a small confederacy,[161]Præneste felt herself strong enough to defy the other cities of the league,[162]and in fact even to play fast and loose with Rome, as Rome kept or transgressed the stipulations of their agreements. Rome, however, took advantage of Præneste at every opportunity. She assumed control of some of her land in 338 B.C., on the ground that Præneste helped the Gauls in 390;[163]she showed her jealousy of Præneste by refusing to allow Quintus Lutatius Cerco to consult the lots there during the first Punic war.[164]This jealousy manifested itself again in the way the leader of a contingent from Præneste was treated by a Roman dictator[165]in 319 B.C. But while these isolated outbursts of jealousy showed the ill feeling of Rome toward Præneste, there is yet a stronger evidence of the fact that Præneste had been in early times more than Rome's equal, for through the entire subsequent history of the aggrandizement of Rome at the expense of every other town in the Latin League, there runs a bitterness which finds expression in the slurs cast upon Præneste, an ever-recurring reminder of the centuries of ancient grudge. Often in Roman literature Præneste is mentioned as the typical country town. Her inhabitants are laughed at because of their bad pronunciation, despised and pitied because of their characteristic combination of pride and rusticity. Yet despite the dwindling fortunes of the town she was able to keep a treaty with Rome on nearly equal terms until 90 B.C., the year in which the Julian law was passed.[166]Præneste scornfully refused Roman citizenship in 216 B.C., when it was offered.[167]This refusal Rome never forgot nor forgave. No Prænestine families seem to have been taken into the Roman patriciate, as were some from Alba Longa,[168]nor did Præneste ever send any citizens of note to Rome, who were honored as was Cato from Tusculum,[169]although one branch of the gens Anicia[170]did gain some reputation in imperial times. Rome and Præneste seemed destined to be ever at cross purposes, and their ancient rivalry grew to be a traditional dislike which remained mutual and lasting.
The continuance of the commercial and military rivalry because of Præneste's strategic position as key of Rome, and the religious rivalry due to the great fame of Fortuna Primigenia at Præneste, are continuous and striking historical facts even down into the middle ages. Once in 1297 and again in 1437 the forces of the Pope destroyed the town to crush the great Colonna family which had made Præneste a stronghold against the power of Rome.
There are a great many reasons why Præneste offers the best opportunity for a study of the municipal officers of a town of the Latin league. She kept a practical autonomy longer than any other of the league towns with the exception of Tibur, but she has a much more varied history than Tibur. The inscriptions of Præneste offer especial advantages, because they are numerous and cover a wide range. The great number of the old pigne inscriptions gives a better list of names of the citizens of the second century B.C. and earlier than can be found in any other Latin town.[171]Præneste also has more municipal fasti preserved than any other city, and this fact alone is sufficient reason for a study of municipal officers. In fact, the position which Præneste held during the rise and fall of the Latin League has distinct differences from that of any other town in the confederation, and these differences are to be seen in every stage of her history, whether as an ally, a municipium, or a colonia.
As an ally of Rome, Præneste did not have a curtailed treaty as did Alba Longa,[172]but one on equal terms (foedus æquum), such as was accorded to a sovereign state. This is proved by the right of exile which both Præneste and Tibur still retained until as late as 90 B.C.[173]
As a municipium, the rights of Præneste were shared by only one other city in the league. She was not a municipium which, like Lanuvium and Tusculum,[174]kept a separate state, but whose citizens, although called Roman citizens, were without right to vote, nor, on the other hand, was she in the class of municipia of which Aricia is a type, towns which had no vote in Rome, but were governed from there like a city ward.[175]Præneste, on the contrary, belonged to yet a third class. This was the most favored class of all; in fact, equality was implicit in the agreement with Rome, which was to the effect that when these cities joined the Roman state, the inhabitants were to be, first of all, citizens of their own states.[176]Præneste shared this extraordinary agreement with Rome with but one other Latin city, Tibur. The question whether or not Præneste was ever a municipium in the technical and constitutional sense of the word is apart from the present discussion, and will be taken up later.[177]
As a colony, Præneste has a different history from that of any other of the colonies founded by Sulla. Because of her stubborn defence, and her partisanship for Marius, her walls were razed and her citizens murdered in numbers almost beyond belief. Yet at a later time, Sulla with a revulsion of kindness quite characteristic of him, rebuilt the town, enlarged it, and was most generous in every way. The sentiment which attached to the famous antiquity and renown of Præneste was too strong to allow it to lie in ruins. Further, in colonies the most characteristic officers were the quattuorviri. Præneste, again different, shows no trace of such officers.
Indeed, at all times during the history of Latium, Præneste clearly had a city government different from that of any other in the old Latin League. For example, before the Social War[178]both Præneste and Tibur had ædiles and quæstors, but Tibur also had censors,[179]Præneste did not. Lavinium[180]and Præneste were alike in that they both had prætors. There were dictators in Aricia,[181]Lanuvium,[182]Nomentum,[183]and Tusculum,[184]but no trace of a dictator in Præneste.
The first mention of a magistrate from Præneste, a prætor, in 319 B.C, is due to a joke of the Roman dictator Papirius Cursor.[185]The prætor was in camp as leader of the contingent of allies from Præneste,[186]and the fact that a prætor was in command of the troops sent from allied towns[187]implies that another prætor was at the head of affairs at home. Another and stronger proof of the government by two prætors is afforded by the later duoviral magistracy, and the lack of friction under such an arrangement.
There is no reason to believe that the Latin towns took as models for their early municipal officers, the consuls at Rome, rather than to believe that the reverse was the case. In fact, the change in Rome to the name consuls from prætors,[188]with the continuance of the name prætor in the towns of the Latin League, would rather go to prove that the Romans had given their two chief magistrates a distinctive name different from that in use in the neighboring towns, because the more rapid growth in Rome of magisterial functions demanded official terminology, as the Romans began their "Progressive Subdivision of the Magistracy."[189]Livy says that in 341 B.C. Latium had two prætors,[190]and this shows two things: first, that two prætors were better adapted to circumstances than one dictator; second, that the majority of the towns had prætors, and had had them, as chief magistrates, and not dictators,[191]and that such an arrangement was more satisfactory. The Latin League had had a dictator[192]at its head at some time,[193]and the fact that these two prætors are found at the head of the league in 341 B.C. shows the deference to the more progressive and influential cities of the league, where prætors were the regular and well known municipal chief magistrates. Before Præneste was made a colony by Sulla, the governing body was a senate,[194]and the municipal officers were prætors,[195]ædiles,[196]and quæstors,[197]as we know certainly from inscriptions. In the literature, a prætor is mentioned in 319 B.C.,[198]in 216 B.C.,[199]and again in 173 B.C. implicitly, in a statement concerning the magistrates of an allied city.[200]In fact nothing in the inscriptions or in the literature gives a hint at any change in the political relations between Præneste and Rome down to 90 B.C., the year in which the lex Iulia was passed. If a dictator was ever at the head of the city government in Præneste, there are none of the proofs remaining, such as are found in the towns of the Alban Hills, in Etruria, and in the medix tuticus of the Sabellians. The fact that no trace of the dictator remains either in Tibur or Præneste seems to imply that these two towns had better opportunities for a more rapid development, and that both had prætors at a very early period.[201]
However strongly the weight of probabilities make for proof in the endeavor to find out what the municipal government of Præneste was, there are a certain number of facts that can now be stated positively. Before 90 B.C. the administrative officers of Præneste were two prætors,[202]who had the regular ædiles and quæstors as assistants. These officers were elected by the citizens of the place. There was also a senate, but the qualifications and duties of its members are uncertain. Some information, however, is to be derived from the fact that both city officers and senate were composed in the main of the local nobility.[203]
An important epoch in the history of Præneste begins with the year 91 B.C. In this year the dispute over the extension of the franchise to Italy began again, and the failure of the measure proposed by the tribune M. Livius Drusus led to an Italian revolt, which soon assumed a serious aspect. To mitigate or to cripple this revolt (the so-called Social or Marsic war), a bill was offered and passed in 90 B.C. This was the famous law (lex Iulia) which applied to all Italian states that had not revolted, or had stopped their revolt, and it offered Roman citizenship (civitas) to all such states, with, however, the remarkable provision, IF THEY DESIRED IT.[204]At all events, this law either did not meet the needs of the occasion, or some of the allied states showed no eagerness to accept Rome's offer. Within a few months after the lex Iulia had gone into effect, which was late in the year 90, the lex Plautia Papiria was passed, which offered Roman citizenship to the citizens (cives et incolæ) of the federated cities, provided they handed in their names within sixty days to the city prætor in Rome.[205]
There is no unanimity of opinion as to the status of Præneste in 90 B.C. The reason is twofold. It has never been shown whether Præneste at this time belonged technically to the Latins (Latini) or to the allies (foederati), and it is not known under which of the two laws just mentioned she took Roman citizenship. In 338 B.C., after the close of the Latin war, Præneste and Tibur made either a special treaty[206]with Rome, as seems most likely, or one in which the old status quo was reaffirmed. In 268 B.C. Præneste lost one right of federated cities, that of coinage,[207]but continued to hold the right of a sovereign city, that of exile (ius exilii) in 171 B.C.,[208]in common with Tibur and Naples,[209]and on down to the year 90 at any rate (see note 9). It is to be remembered too that in the year 216 B.C., after the heroic deeds of the Prænestine cohort at Casilinum, the inhabitants of Præneste were offered Roman citizenship, and that they refused it.[210]Now if the citizens of Præneste accepted Roman citizenship in 90 B.C., under the conditions of the Julian law (lex Iulia de civitate sociis danda), then they were still called allies (socii) at that time.[211]But that the provision in the law, namely, citizenship, if the allies desired it, did not accomplish its purpose, is clear from the immediate passage in 89 of the lex Plautia-Papiria.[212]Probably there was some change of phraseology which was obnoxious in the Iulia. The traditional touchiness and pride of the Prænestines makes it sure that they resisted Roman citizenship as long as they could, and it seems more likely that it was under the provision of the Plautia-Papiria than under those of the Iulia that separate citizenship in Præneste became a thing of the past. Two years later, in 87 B.C., when, because of the troubles between the two consuls Cinna and Octavius, Cinna had been driven from Rome, he went out directly to Præneste and Tibur, which had lately been received into citizenship,[213]tried to get them to revolt again from Rome, and collected money for the prosecution of the war. This not only shows that Præneste had lately received Roman citizenship, but implies also that Rome thus far had not dared to assume any control of the city, or the consul would not have felt so sure of his reception.
WAS PRÆNESTE A MUNICIPIUM?
Just what relation Præneste bore to Rome between 90 or 89 B.C., when she accepted Roman citizenship, and 82 B.C. when Sulla made her a colony, is still an unsettled question. Was Præneste made a municipium by Rome, did Præneste call herself a municipium, or, because the rights which she enjoyed and guarded as an ally (civitas foederata) had been so restricted and curtailed, was she called and considered a municipium by Rome, but allowed to keep the empty substance of the name of an allied state?
During the development which followed the gradual extension of Roman citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy, because of the increase of the rights of autonomy in the colonies, and the limitation of the rights formerly enjoyed by the cities which had belonged to the old confederation or league (foederati), there came to be small difference between a colonia and a municipium. While the nominal difference seems to have still held in legal parlance, in the literature the two names are often interchanged.[214]Mommsen-Marquardt say[215]that in 90 B.C. under the conditions of the lex Iulia Præneste became a municipium of the type which kept its own citizenship (ut municipes essent suæ cuiusque civitatis).[216]But if this were true, then Præneste would have come under the jurisdiction of the city prætor (prætor urbanus) in Rome, and there would be præfects to look after cases for him. Præneste has a very large body of inscriptions which extend from the earliest to the latest times, and which are wider in range than those of any other town in Latium outside Rome. But no inscription mentions a præfect and here under the circumstances the argumentum ex silentio is of real constructive value, and constitutes circumstantial evidence of great weight.[217]Præneste had lost her ancient rights one after the other, but it is sure that she clung the longest to the separate property right. Now the property in a municipium is not considered as Roman, a result of the old sovereign state idea, as given by the ius Quiritium and ius Gabinorum, although Mommsen says this had no real practical value.[218]So whether Præneste received Roman citizenship in 90 or in 89 B.C. the spirit of her past history makes it certain that she demanded a clause which gave specific rights to the old federated states, such as had always been in her treaty with Rome.[219]There seems to have been no such clause in the lex Iulia of 90 B.C., and this fact gives still another reason, in addition to the ones mentioned, to conclude that Præneste probably took citizenship in 89 under the lex Plautia-Papiria. The extreme cruelty which Sulla used toward Præneste,[220]and the great amount of its land[221]that he took for his soldiers when he colonized the place, show that Sulla not only punished the city because it had sided with Marius, but that the feeling of a Roman magistrate was uppermost, and that he was now avenging traditional grievances, as well as punishing recent obstreperousness.
There seems to be, however, very good reasons for saying that Præneste never became a municipium in the strict legal sense of the word. First, the particular officials who belong to a municipium, præfects and quattuorvirs, are not found at all;[222]second, the use of the word municipium in literature in connection with Præneste is general, and means simply "town";[223]third, the fact that Præneste, along with Tibur, had clung so jealously to the title of federated state (civitas foederata) from some uncertain date to the time of the Latin rebellion, and more proudly than ever from 338 to 90 B.C., makes it very unlikely that so great a downfall of a city's pride would be passed over in silence; fourth and last, the fact that the Prænestines asked the emperor Tiberius to give them the status of a municipium,[224]which he did,[225]but it seems (see note 60) with no change from the regular city officials of a colony,[226]shows clearly that the Prænestines simply took advantage of the fact that Tiberius had just recovered from a severe illness at Præneste[227]to ask him for what was merely an empty honor. It only salved the pride of the Prænestines, for it gave them a name which showed a former sovereign federated state, and not the name of a colony planted by the Romans.[228]The cogency of this fourth reason will bear elaboration. Præneste would never have asked for a return to the name municipium if it had not meant something. At the very best she could not have been a real municipium with Roman citizenship longer than seven years, 89 to 82 B.C., and that at a very unsettled time, nor would an enforced taking of the status of a municipium, not to mention the ridiculously short period which it would have lasted, have been anything to look back to with such pride that the inhabitants would ask the emperor Tiberius for it again. What they did ask for was the name municipium as they used and understood it, for it meant to them everything or anything but colonia.
Let us now sum up the municipal history of Præneste down to 82 B.C. when she was made a Roman colony by Sulla. Præneste, from the earliest times, like Rome, Tusculum, and Aricia, was one of the chief cities in the territory known as Ancient Latium. Like these other cities, Præneste made herself head of a small league,[229]but unlike the others, offers nothing but comparative probability that she was ever ruled by kings or dictators. So of prime importance not only in the study of the municipal officers of Præneste, but also in the question of Præneste's relationship to Rome, is the fact that the evidence from first to last is for prætors as the chief executive officers of the Prænestine state (respublica), with their regular attendant officers, ædiles and quæstors; all of whom probably stood for office in the regular succession (cursus honorum). Above these officers was a senate, an administrative or advisory body. But although Præneste took Roman citizenship either in 90 or 89 B.C.,[213]it seems most likely that she was not legally termed a municipium, but that she came in under some special clause, or with some particular understanding, whereby she kept her autonomy, at least in name. Præneste certainly considered herself a federate city, on the old terms of equality with Rome, she demanded and partially retained control of her own land, and preserved her freedom from Rome in the matter of city elections and magistrates.
PRÆNESTE AS A COLONY.
From the time of Sulla to the establishment of the monarchy, the expropriation of territory for discharged soldiers found its expression in great part in the change from Italian cities to colonies,[230]and of the colonies newly made by Sulla, Præneste was one. The misfortunes that befell Præneste, because she seemed doomed to be on the losing side in quarrels, were never more disastrously exemplified than in the punishment inflicted upon her by Sulla, because she had taken the side of Marius. Thousands of her citizens were killed (seenote 220), her fortifications were thrown down, a great part of her territory was taken and given to Sulla's soldiers, who were the settlers of his new-made colony. At once the city government of Præneste changed. Instead of a senate, there was now a decuria (decuriones, ordo); instead of prætors, duovirs with judicial powers (iure dicundo), in short, the regular governmental officialdom for a Roman colony. The city offices were filled partly by the new colonists, and the new government which was forced upon her was so thoroughly established, that Præneste remained a colony as long as her history can be traced in the inscriptions. As has been said, in the time of Tiberius she got back an empty title, that of municipium, but it had been nearly forgotten again by Hadrian's time.
There are several unanswered questions which arise at this point. What was the distribution of offices in the colony after its foundation; what regulation, if any, was there as to the proportion of officials to the new make up of the population; and what and who were the quinquennial duovirs? From the proportionately large fragments of municipal fasti left from Præneste it will be possible to reach some conclusions that may be of future value.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICES.
The beginning of this question comes from a passage in Cicero,[231]which says that the Sullan colonists in Pompeii were preferred in the offices, and had a status of citizenship better than that of the old inhabitants of the city. Such a state of affairs might also seem natural in a colony which had just been deprived of one third of its land, and had had forced upon it as citizens a troop of soldiers who naturally would desire to keep the city offices as far as possible in their own control.[232]Dessau thinks that because this unequal state of citizenship was found in Pompeii, which was a colony of Sulla's, it must have been found also in Præneste, another of his colonies.[233]Before entering into the question of whether or not this can be proved, it will be well to mention three probable reasons why Dessau is wrong in his contention. The first, an argumentum ex silentio, is that if there was trouble in Pompeii between the old inhabitants and the new colonists then the same would have been true in Præneste! As it was so close to Rome, however, the trouble would have been much better known, and certainly Cicero would not have lost a chance to bring the state of affairs at Præneste also into a comparison. Second, the great pains Sulla took to rebuild the walls of Præneste, to lay out a new forum, and especially to make such an extensive enlargement and so many repairs of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia, show that his efforts were not entirely to please his new colonists, but just as much to try to defer to the wishes and civic pride of the old settlers. Third, the fact that a great many of the old inhabitants were left, despite the great slaughter at the capture of the city, is shown by the frequent recurrence in later inscriptions of the ancient names of the city, and by the fact that within twenty years the property of the soldier colonists had been bought up,[234]and the soldiers had died, or had moved to town, or reenlisted for foreign service. Had there been much trouble between the colonists and the old inhabitants, or had the colonists taken all the offices, in either case they would not have been so ready to part with their land, which was a sort of patent to citizenship.
It is possible now to push the inquiry a point further. Dessau has already seen[235]that in the time of Augustus members of the old families were again in possession of many municipal offices, but he thinks the Prænestines did not have as good municipal rights as the colonists in the years following the establishment of the colony. There are six inscriptions[236]which contain lists more or less fragmentary of the magistrates of Præneste, the duovirs, the ædiles, and the quæstors. Two of these inscriptions can be dated within a few years, for they show the election of Germanicus and Drusus Cæsar, and of Nero and Drusus, the sons of Germanicus, to the quinquennial duovirate.[237]Two others[238]are certainly pieces of the same fasti because of several peculiarities,[239]and one other, a fragment, belongs to still another calendar.[240]It will first be necessary to show that these last-mentioned inscriptions can be referred to some time not much later than the founding of the colony at Præneste by Sulla, before any use can be made of the names in the list to prove anything about the early distribution of officers in the colony. Two of these inscriptions[238]should be placed, I think, very early in the annals of the colony. They show a list of municipal officers whose names, with a single exception, which will be accounted for later, have only prænomen and nomen, a way of writing names which was common to the earlier inhabitants of Præneste, and which seems to have made itself felt here in the names of the colonists.[241]Again, from the fact that in the only place in the inscriptions where the quinquennialship is mentioned, it is the simple term, without the prefixed duoviri. In the later inscriptions from imperial times,[237]both forms are found, while in the year 31 A.D. in the municipal fasti of Nola[242]are found II vir(i) iter(um) q(uinquennales), and in 29 B.C. in the fasti from Venusia,[243]officials with the same title, duoviri quinquennales, which show that the officers of the year in which the census was taken were given both titles. Marquardt makes this a proof that the quinquennial title shows nothing more than a function of the regular duovir.[244]It is certain too that after the passage of the lex Iulia in 45 B.C., that the census was taken in the Italian towns at the same time as in Rome, and the reports sent to the censor in Rome.[245]This duty was performed by the duovirs with quinquennial power, also often called censorial power.[246]The inscriptions under consideration, then, would seem to date certainly before 49 B.C.
Another reason for placing these inscriptions in the very early days of the colony is derived from the use of names. In this list of officials[247]there is a duovir by the name of P. Cornelius, and another whose name is lost except for the cognomen, Dolabella, but he can be no other than a Cornelius, for this cognomen belongs to that family.[248]Early in the life of the colony, immediately after its settlement, during the repairs and rebuilding of the city's monuments,[249]while the soldiers from Sulla's army were the new citizens of the town, would be the time to look for men in the city offices whose election would have been due to Sulla, or would at least appear to have been a compliment to him. Sulla was one of the most famous of the family of the Cornelii, and men of the gens Cornelia might well have expected preferment during the early years of the colony. That such was the case is shown here by the recurrence of the name Cornelius in the list of municipal officers in two succeeding years. Now if the name "Cornelia" grew to be a name in great disfavor in Præneste, the reason would be plain enough. The destruction of the town, the loss of its ancient liberties, and the change in its government, are more than enough to assure hatred of the man who had been the cause of the disasters. And there is proof too that the Prænestines did keep a lasting dislike to the name "Cornelia." There are many inscriptions of Præneste which show the names (nomina) Ælia, Antonia, Aurelia, Claudia, Flavia, Iulia, Iunia, Marcia, Petronia, Valeria, among others, but besides the two Cornelii in this inscription under consideration, and one other[250]mentioned in the fragment above (see note 83), there are practically no people of that name found in Præneste,[251]and the name is frequent enough in other towns of the old Latin league. From these reasons, namely, the way in which only prænomina and nomina are used, the simple, earlier use of quinquennalis, and especially the appearance of the name Cornelius here, and never again until in the late empire, it follows that the names of the municipal officers of Præneste given in these inscriptions certainly date between 81 and 50 B.C.[252]